The Jerusalem compromise, like every other
compromise, was liable to a double construction, and had in it the seed
of future troubles. It was an armistice rather than a final settlement.
Principles must and will work themselves out, and the one or the other
must triumph.

A liberal construction of the spirit of the decree
seemed to demand full communion of the Jewish Christians with their
uncircumcised Gentile brethren, even at the Lord’s
table, in the weekly or daily agapae, on the basis of the common saving
faith in Christ, their common Lord and Saviour. But a strict
construction of the letter stopped with the recognition of the general
Christian character of the Gentile converts, and guarded against
ecclesiastical amalgamation on the ground of the continued obligation
of the Jewish converts to obey the ceremonial law, including the
observance of circumcision, of the Sabbath and new moons, and the
various regulations about clean and unclean meats, which virtually
forbid social intercourse with unclean Gentiles.466466 Without intending any censure,
we may illustrate the position of the strict constructionists of the
school of St. James by similar examples of conscientious and scrupulous
exclusiveness. Roman Catholics know no church but their own, and refuse
all religious fellowship with non Catholics; yet many of them will
admit the action of divine grace and the possibility of salvation
outside of the limits of the papacy. Some Lutherans maintain the
principle: "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only; Lutheran
altars for Lutheran communicants only." Luther himself refused at
Marburg the hand of fellowship to Zwingli, who was certainly a
Christian, and agreed with him in fourteen out of fifteen articles of
doctrine. High church Anglicans recognize no valid ministry without
episcopal ordination; close communion Baptists admit no valid baptism
but by immersion; and yet the Episcopalians do not deny the Christian
character of non-Episcopalians, nor the Baptists the Christian
character of Pedo-Baptists, while they would refuse to sit with them at
the Lord’s table. There are psalm-singing
Presbyterians who would not even worship, and much less commune, with
other Presbyterians who sing what they call "uninspired" hymns. In all
these cases, whether consistently or not, a distinction is made between
Christian fellowship and church fellowship. With reference to all these
and other forms of exclusiveness we would say in the spirit of Paul:
"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision" (viewed as a mere sign)
"availeth anything, nor uncircumcision," neither Catholicism nor
Protestantism, neither Lutheranism nor Calvinism, neither Calvinism nor
Arminianism, neither episcopacy nor presbytery, neither immersion nor
pouring nor sprinkling, nor any other accidental distinction of birth
and outward condition, but "a new creature, faith working through love,
and the keeping of the commandments of God."Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor.
7:19.

The conservative view was orthodox, and must not
be confounded with the Judaizing heresy which demanded circumcision
from the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and made it a term of church
membership and a condition of salvation. This doctrine had been
condemned once for all by the Jerusalem agreement, and was held
hereafter only by the malignant pharisaical faction of the
Judaizers.

The church of Jerusalem, being composed entirely
of Jewish converts, would naturally take the conservative view; while
the church of Antioch, where the Gentile element prevailed, would as
naturally prefer the liberal interpretation, which had the certain
prospect of ultimate success. James, who perhaps never went outside of
Palestine, far from denying the Christian character of the Gentile
converts, would yet keep them at a respectful distance; while Peter,
with his impulsive, generous nature, and in keeping with his more
general vocation, carried out in practice the conviction he had so
boldly professed in Jerusalem, and on a visit to Antioch, shortly after
the Jerusalem Council (a.d. 51), openly and
habitually communed at table with the Gentile brethren.467467 The imperfect συνήσθιεν
μετὰ τῶν
ἐθνῶν,
Gal. 2:12, indicates habit he used to eat with the uncircumcised
Christians. This is the best proof from the pen of Paul himself that
Peter agreed with him in principle and even in his usual practice. The
eating refers, in all probability, not only to common meals, but also
to the primitive love-feasts (agapae) and the holy communion, where
brotherly recognition and fellowship is consummated and
scaled. He had
already once before eaten in the house of the uncircumcised Cornelius
at Caesarea, seeing that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every
nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to
him."468468Acts 10:27-29, 34, 35; 11:3:
"thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with
them."

But when some delegates of James469469τινὲς
ἀπὸ
Ἰακώβου, Gal, 2:12, seems to imply that they were sent by James
(comp. Matt. 26:47; Mark 5:25; John 3:2), and not simply disciples of
James or members of his congregation, which would be expressed
by τινὲς
τῶν ἀπὸ
Ἰακώβου. See Grimm, l.c., p. 427. arrived from
Jerusalem and remonstrated with him for his conduct, he timidly
withdrew from fellowship with the uncircumcised followers of Christ,
and thus virtually disowned them. He unwittingly again denied his Lord
from the fear of man, but this time in the persons of his Gentile
disciples. The inconsistency is characteristic of his impulsive temper,
which made him timid or bold according to the nature of the momentary
impression. It is not stated whether these delegates simply carried out
the instructions of James or went beyond them. The former is more
probable from what we know of him, and explains more easily the conduct
of Peter, who would scarcely have been influenced by casual and
unofficial visitors. They were perhaps officers in the congregation of
Jerusalem; at all events men of weight, not Pharisees exactly, yet
extremely conservative and cautious, and afraid of miscellaneous
company, which might endanger the purity and orthodoxy of the venerable
mother church of Christendom. They did, of course, not demand the
circumcision of the Gentile Christians, for this would have been in
direct opposition to the synodical decree, but they no doubt reminded
Peter of the understanding of the Jerusalem compact concerning the duty
of Jewish Christians, which he above all others should scrupulously
keep. They represented to him that his conduct was at least very hasty
and premature, and calculated to hinder the conversion of the Jewish
nation, which was still the object of their dearest hopes and most
fervent prayers. The pressure must have been very strong, for even
Barnabas, who had stood side by side with Paul at Jerusalem in the
defence of the rights of the Gentile Christians, was intimidated and
carried away by the example of the chief of the apostles.

The subsequent separation of Paul from Barnabas
and Mark, which the author of Acts frankly relates, was no doubt partly
connected with this manifestation of human weakness.470470 There are not a few examples of
successful intimidations of strong and bold men. Luther was so
frightened at the prospect of a split of the holy Catholic church, in
an interview with the papal legate, Carl von Miltitz, at Altenburg in
January, 1519, that he promised to write and did write a most
humiliating letter of submission to the Pope, and a warning to the
German people against secession. But the irrepressible conflict soon
broke out again at the Leipzig disputation in June, 1519.

The sin of Peter roused the fiery temper of Paul,
and called upon him a sharper rebuke than he had received from his
Master. A mere look of pity from Jesus was enough to call forth bitter
tears of repentance. Paul was not Jesus. He may have been too severe in
the manner of his remonstrance, but he knew Peter better than we, and
was right in the matter of dispute, and after all more moderate than
some of the greatest and best men have been in personal controversy.
Forsaken by the prince of the apostles and by his own faithful ally in
the Gentile mission, he felt that nothing but unflinching courage could
save the sinking ship of freedom. A vital principle was at stake, and
the Christian standing of the Gentile converts must be maintained at
all hazards, now or never, if the world was to be saved and
Christianity was not to shrink into a narrow corner as a Jewish sect.
Whatever might do in Jerusalem, where there was scarcely a heathen
convert, this open affront to brethren in Christ could not be tolerated
for a moment at Antioch in the church which was of his own planting and
full of Hellenists and Gentiles. A public scandal must be publicly
corrected. And so Paul confronted Peter and charged him with downright
hypocrisy in the face of the whole congregation. He exposed his
misconduct by his terse reasoning, to which Peter could make no
reply.471471Gal 2:14-21. We take this
section to be a brief outline of Paul’s address to
Peter; but the historical narrative imperceptibly passes into doctrinal
reflections suggested by the occasion and adapted to the case of the
Galatians. In the third chapter it naturally expands into a direct
attack on the Galatians. "If thou," he said to him in substance, "who
art a Jew by nationality and training, art eating with the Gentiles in
disregard of the ceremonial prohibition, why art thou now, by the moral
force of thy example as the chief of the Twelve, constraining the
Gentile converts to Judaize or to conform to the ceremonial restraints
of the elementary religion? We who are Jews by birth and not gross
sinners like the heathen, know that justification comes not from works
of the law, but from faith in Christ. It may be objected that by
seeking gratuitous justification instead of legal justification, we
make Christ a promoter of sin.472472 Paul draws, in the form of a
question, a false conclusion of the Judaizing opponents from
correct premises of his own, and rejects the conclusion with his
usual formula of abhorrence, μὴ
γένοιτο, as in Rom. 6:2. Away with this monstrous and blasphemous
conclusion! On the contrary, there is sin in returning to the law for
justification after we have abandoned it for faith in Christ. I myself
stand convicted of transgression if I build up again (as thou doest
now) the very law which I pulled down (as thou didst before), and thus
condemn my former conduct. For the law itself taught me to exchange it
for Christ, to whom it points as its end. Through the Mosaic law as a
tutor leading me beyond itself to freedom in Christ, I died to the
Mosaic law in order that I might live a new life of obedience and
gratitude to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no
longer my old self that lives, but it is Christ that lives in me; and
the new life of Christ which I now live in this body after my
conversion, I live in the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave
himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if the
observance of the law of Moses or any other human work could justify
and save, there was no good cause of Christ’s death
his atoning sacrifice on the cross was needless and fruitless."

From such a conclusion Peter’s
soul shrank back in horror. He never dreamed of denying the necessity
and efficacy of the death of Christ for the remission of sins. He and
Barnabas stood between two fires on that trying occasion. As Jews they
seemed to be bound by the restrictions of the Jerusalem compromise on
which the messengers of James insisted; but by trying to please the
Jews they offended the Gentiles, and by going back to Jewish
exclusiveness they did violence to their better convictions, and felt
condemned by their own conscience.473473Gal. 2:11, Peter stood
self-condemned and condemned by the Gentiles, κατεγνωσμένος
ἦν, not " blameworthy," or " was to be blamed"(E.
V.). They no doubt returned to
their more liberal practice.

The alienation of the apostles was merely
temporary. They were too noble and too holy to entertain resentment.
Paul makes honorable mention afterwards of Peter and Barnabas, and also
of Mark, who was a connecting link between the three.474474 Comp. 1 Cor. 9:5, 6; 15:5; Col.
4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. Peter in his
Epistles endorses the teaching of the "beloved brother Paul," and
commends the wisdom of his Epistles, in one of which his own conduct is
so severely rebuked, but significantly adds that there are some "things
in them hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast
wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction."4754751 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:15,
16.

The scene of Antioch belongs to these things which
have been often misunderstood and perverted by prejudice and ignorance
in the interest both of heresy and orthodoxy. The memory of it was
perpetuated by the tradition which divided the church at Antioch into
two parishes with two bishops, Evodius and Ignatius, the one instituted
by Peter, the other by Paul. Celsus, Porphyry, and modern enemies of
Christianity have used it as an argument against the moral character
and inspiration of the apostles. The conduct of Paul left a feeling of
intense bitterness and resentment in the Jewish party which manifested
itself even a hundred years later in a violent attack of the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions upon Paul, under the
disguise of Simon Magus. The conduct of both apostles was so
unaccountable to Catholic taste that some of the fathers substituted an
unknown Cephas for Peter;476476 So Clement of Alexandria, and
other fathers, also the Jesuit Harduin. while others resolved the scene into a
hypocritical farce gotten up by the apostles themselves for dramatic
effect upon the ignorant congregation.477477 This monstrous perversion of
Scripture was advocated even by such fathers as Origen, Jerome, and
Chrysostom. It gave rise to a controversy between Jerome and Augustin,
who from a superior moral sense protested against it, and
prevailed.

The truth of history requires us to sacrifice the
orthodox fiction of moral perfection in the apostolic church. But we
gain more than we lose. The apostles themselves never claimed, but
expressly disowned such perfection.478478 Comp. 2 Cor, 4:7; Phil. 3:12;
James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:2. They carried the heavenly
treasure in earthen vessels, and thus brought it nearer to us. The
infirmities of holy men are frankly revealed in the Bible for our
encouragement as well as for our humiliation. The bold attack of Paul
teaches the right and duty of protest even against the highest
ecclesiastical authority, when Christian truth and principle are
endangered; the quiet submission of Peter commends him to our esteem
for his humility and meekness in proportion to his high standing as the
chief among the pillar-apostles; the conduct of both explodes the
Romish fiction of papal supremacy and infallibility; and the whole
scene typically foreshadows the grand historical conflict between
Petrine Catholicism and Pauline Protestantism, which, we trust, will
end at last in a grand Johannean reconciliation.

Peter and Paul, as far as we know, never met
afterwards till they both shed their blood for the testimony of Jesus
in the capital of the world.

The fearless remonstrance of Paul had probably a
moderating effect upon James and his elders, but did not alter their
practice in Jerusalem.479479 Comp. Acts 21:17-20. Still less did it silence the extreme Judaizing
faction; on the contrary, it enraged them. They were defeated, but not
convinced, and fought again with greater bitterness than ever. They
organized a countermission, and followed Paul into almost every field
of his labor, especially to Corinth and Galatia. They were a thorn,
if not the thorn, in his flesh. He has them in view in all his
Epistles except those to the Thessalonians and to Philemon. We cannot
understand his Epistles in their proper historical sense without this
fact. The false apostles were perhaps those very Pharisees who caused
the original trouble, at all events men of like spirit. They boasted of
their personal acquaintance with the Lord in the days of his flesh, and
with the primitive apostles; hence Paul calls these "false apostles"
sarcastically "super-eminent" or "over-extra-apostles."480480 The E. V. translates
ὑπερλίαν
ἀπόστολοι, 2 Cor. 11:5, "the very chiefest apostles," Plumptre
better, "those apostles-extraordinary." They are identical with
the ψευδαπόστολοι,
11:13, and not with the pillar-apostles of the
circumcision, Gal. 2:9; see above, p. 334, note 1. They
attacked his apostolate as irregular and spurious, and his gospel as
radical and revolutionary. They boldly told his Gentile converts that
the, must submit to circumcision and keep the ceremonial law; in other
words, that they must be Jews as well as Christians in order to
insure salvation, or at all events to occupy a position of
pre-eminence over and above mere proselytes of the gate in the outer
court. They appealed, without foundation, to James and Peter and to
Christ himself, and abused their name and authority for their narrow
sectarian purposes, just as the Bible itself is made responsible for
all sorts of heresies and vagaries. They seduced many of the impulsive
and changeable Galatians, who had all the characteristics of the Keltic
race. They split the congregation in Corinth into several parties and
caused the apostle the deepest anxiety. In Colossae, and the churches
of Phrygia and Asia, legalism assumed the milder form of Essenic
mysticism and asceticism. In the Roman church the legalists were weak
brethren rather than false brethren, and no personal enemies of Paul,
who treats them much more mildly than the Galatian errorists.

This bigoted and most persistent Judaizing
reaction was overruled for good. It drew out from the master mind of
Paul the most complete and most profound vindication and exposition of
the doctrines of sin and grace. Without the intrigues and machinations
of these legalists and ritualists we should not have the invaluable
Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. Where error
abounded, truth has still more abounded.

At last the victory was won. The terrible
persecution under Nero, and the still more terrible destruction of
Jerusalem, buried the circumcision controversy in the Christian church.
The ceremonial law, which before Christ was "alive but not
life-giving," and which from Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem was
"dying but not deadly," became after that destruction "dead and
deadly."481481 Augustin thus distinguishes
three periods in the Mosaic law: 1, lex
viva, sed non vivifica; 2, l.
moribunda, sed non mortifera; 3, l. mortua et
mortifera. The Judaizing heresy was indeed continued
outside of the Catholic church by the sect of the Ebionites during the
second century; and in the church itself the spirit of formalism and
bigotry assumed new shapes by substituting Christian rites and
ceremonies for the typical shadows of the Mosaic dispensation. But
whenever and wherever this tendency manifests itself we have the best
antidote in the Epistles of Paul.

466 Without intending any censure,
we may illustrate the position of the strict constructionists of the
school of St. James by similar examples of conscientious and scrupulous
exclusiveness. Roman Catholics know no church but their own, and refuse
all religious fellowship with non Catholics; yet many of them will
admit the action of divine grace and the possibility of salvation
outside of the limits of the papacy. Some Lutherans maintain the
principle: "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only; Lutheran
altars for Lutheran communicants only." Luther himself refused at
Marburg the hand of fellowship to Zwingli, who was certainly a
Christian, and agreed with him in fourteen out of fifteen articles of
doctrine. High church Anglicans recognize no valid ministry without
episcopal ordination; close communion Baptists admit no valid baptism
but by immersion; and yet the Episcopalians do not deny the Christian
character of non-Episcopalians, nor the Baptists the Christian
character of Pedo-Baptists, while they would refuse to sit with them at
the Lord’s table. There are psalm-singing
Presbyterians who would not even worship, and much less commune, with
other Presbyterians who sing what they call "uninspired" hymns. In all
these cases, whether consistently or not, a distinction is made between
Christian fellowship and church fellowship. With reference to all these
and other forms of exclusiveness we would say in the spirit of Paul:
"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision" (viewed as a mere sign)
"availeth anything, nor uncircumcision," neither Catholicism nor
Protestantism, neither Lutheranism nor Calvinism, neither Calvinism nor
Arminianism, neither episcopacy nor presbytery, neither immersion nor
pouring nor sprinkling, nor any other accidental distinction of birth
and outward condition, but "a new creature, faith working through love,
and the keeping of the commandments of God."Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor.
7:19.

467 The imperfect συνήσθιεν
μετὰ τῶν
ἐθνῶν,
Gal. 2:12, indicates habit he used to eat with the uncircumcised
Christians. This is the best proof from the pen of Paul himself that
Peter agreed with him in principle and even in his usual practice. The
eating refers, in all probability, not only to common meals, but also
to the primitive love-feasts (agapae) and the holy communion, where
brotherly recognition and fellowship is consummated and
scaled.

468Acts 10:27-29, 34, 35; 11:3:
"thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with
them."

469τινὲς
ἀπὸ
Ἰακώβου, Gal, 2:12, seems to imply that they were sent by James
(comp. Matt. 26:47; Mark 5:25; John 3:2), and not simply disciples of
James or members of his congregation, which would be expressed
by τινὲς
τῶν ἀπὸ
Ἰακώβου. See Grimm, l.c., p. 427.

470 There are not a few examples of
successful intimidations of strong and bold men. Luther was so
frightened at the prospect of a split of the holy Catholic church, in
an interview with the papal legate, Carl von Miltitz, at Altenburg in
January, 1519, that he promised to write and did write a most
humiliating letter of submission to the Pope, and a warning to the
German people against secession. But the irrepressible conflict soon
broke out again at the Leipzig disputation in June, 1519.

471Gal 2:14-21. We take this
section to be a brief outline of Paul’s address to
Peter; but the historical narrative imperceptibly passes into doctrinal
reflections suggested by the occasion and adapted to the case of the
Galatians. In the third chapter it naturally expands into a direct
attack on the Galatians.

472 Paul draws, in the form of a
question, a false conclusion of the Judaizing opponents from
correct premises of his own, and rejects the conclusion with his
usual formula of abhorrence, μὴ
γένοιτο, as in Rom. 6:2.

473Gal. 2:11, Peter stood
self-condemned and condemned by the Gentiles, κατεγνωσμένος
ἦν, not " blameworthy," or " was to be blamed"(E.
V.).

476 So Clement of Alexandria, and
other fathers, also the Jesuit Harduin.

477 This monstrous perversion of
Scripture was advocated even by such fathers as Origen, Jerome, and
Chrysostom. It gave rise to a controversy between Jerome and Augustin,
who from a superior moral sense protested against it, and
prevailed.

480 The E. V. translates
ὑπερλίαν
ἀπόστολοι, 2 Cor. 11:5, "the very chiefest apostles," Plumptre
better, "those apostles-extraordinary." They are identical with
the ψευδαπόστολοι,
11:13, and not with the pillar-apostles of the
circumcision, Gal. 2:9; see above, p. 334, note 1.